Nine Costs to Remember when procuring CRM Systems

On the ninth day of Christmas, my truelove gave to me... Nine Costs to Remember when procuring CRM Systems

There are many costs which you need to take into account when procuring and then implementing a new CRM System or Fundraising Database. The following are the core costs:

• Software Licenses: Regardless of the type of license - perpetual vs monthly/annual (subscription) licenses, and concurrent vs named vs unlimited user numbers - you need to make sure you are comparing like-for-like across all your potential options, including any 'core module', additional modules/apps etc. (And that's before you consider and compare actual functionality and benefits.)
• Hosting/Storage: This can be different depending on whether you are looking at cloud or on-premise or third-party hosting. It is comparatively simple to cost at an "explicit" level but can be very difficult when looking more deeply. At a simple level, Cloud systems will probably include x Gb of storage with your standard price and then you pay extra for every additional Gb you need. Bear in mind that can add up, especially for larger databases. You will therefore need to work with potential CRM suppliers to calculate how much storage you will need - and then add more to allow for future growth. That can be difficult. With on-premise solutions, the explicit cost is of course the hardware and associated software - but the harder costs are the fact that your internal IT staff will need to maintain that hardware, do upgrades etc, which is why Cloud salespeople say Cloud is so much cheaper. And for on-premise, you should probably also allow for the cost of new servers every n years, depending on your organisation's policy.
• Internal Project Team: Except for small database implementations, you will almost certainly need specific costs for an internal project team, back-filling etc. (See Christmas Tip #6 for a few more thoughts on this). Such costs could vary depending on the type of software or supplier you select.
• Supplier Professional Services. This has the potential to be a wide range of costs - and one of the highest budgets. For example: consultancy, system design, development and customisation, creating blueprints, report writing, installation, support with UAT, post-live support, project management etc etc. Read another blog post of mine about how you can compare suppliers' professional services costs and what to look out for.
• Data migration: I have separated these from the rest of the Supplier Professional Services because, for any database larger than a simple spreadsheet, they can be harder to cost up-front, until a supplier has had the chance to look at your existing database in detail. For larger projects, this won't come cheap - do not under-estimate.
• Training costs: whether it is internal, using a third-party/contract trainer or using the supplier's staff.
• Integration: If your project involves integration of any sort (and it almost certainly will if it is for fundraising), from receiving online donations on your own website or data from JustGiving, through to importing data from fulfilment houses and exporting to finance systems - and more - then these costs can start to add up. I have written several posts specifically about integration over the years. Bear in mind 'integration' can mean different things to different people and to different suppliers so be careful when comparing costs and approaches. Talk to all suppliers in detail to clarify any uncertainties.
• Annual (on-going) Costs: Software Support/Maintenance - Most traditional fundraising package suppliers charge x% per year for software support/maintenance but that often includes future upgrades too. With CRM systems, the business partners you implement the software with will also likely charge annual support costs which will vary depending on whether they are selling a 'template' solution, developing from 'vanilla' etc. And Software licenses - if you are paying on a monthly/annual basis then you will of course continue to pay such costs every year. To compare, annualise them and compare over n years.
• Other Costs: Okay, I know this category could include anything but that's the point! I do also want to emphasise that there are any number of other, additional potential costs in a fundraising or CRM implementation, from hardware and workstations, to PAF and banking validation software, other people costs, paying fulfilment houses and other suppliers to change file formats and so on and so on. Find what you need and build them in to your final budget.

Why I want charities to spend money on suppliers' professional services

 

There sometimes seems to be a keenness amongst CRM/fundraising software suppliers to tell charities that they can implement their software by only spending a bare minimum on their professional services - or even none on some occasions. When I see this, I worry. Why? Because I want charities to spend money on suppliers' professional services. And there are good reasons for this:

• First off: I think that a good supplier offers many benefits by providing professional services. They shouldn't just be a 'software company' that is giving you software and expecting you to use it just like that. I want a company who understands our sector, who gets fundraising, who can provide added value with their services. This is good for the implementation and good in the long-term. Those are the companies who will want to work with charities and enhance their software for charities over time.
• Continuing that theme, I do think some suppliers undersell themselves in this way. I have met knowledgeable and smart people working for suppliers who I think could bring so much to a database implementation at a charity. Why wouldn't we want that?
• The suppliers are the experts at using their software - they know their system. After all, how do you know what is the best way to do something in the supplier's software if you have only just started to use it? What is best for your charity and your situation? The money you spend with them on their services should ultimately save you time and effort, ensure you are set-up better for your fundraising/services and mean you can raise more money/dedicate more time to services.
• You need people to help you. Someone has to. And either you buy-in contractors and specialists or you use the supplier. Implementing fundraising and CRM systems is not easy - it costs money. (Even if the software is free!)
• And then there is data migration… except for the very smallest implementations, you are always going to need to get your data from your old system into your new system, and unless you have lots of capacity and time at your charity, and unless you know the new system well, then the best people to do this are those working for the new supplier.
• If you are told by a supplier that you don't need professional services from them, then what are such companies actually offering that is so simple that you can apparently use it almost of-the-box with no work needed, yet so powerful that it can manage all your requirements? That's how it seems to me that some salespeople present their systems and I'm just not sure that's feasible.
• Are the suppliers not providing any project management services to manage their side of the implementation?
• I suppose there could be a caveat to some of this if you are a really small charity – although even then, as I have said before, such charities won’t have the in-house skills to be experts so they really need a supplier to help. 
• The only situations where I think you might not need to spend money on a supplier's professional services are (a) where you might have a different sort of approach with open-source systems such as CiviCRM if you really have in-house experts, but for many charities they won’t and therefore they will still need the Civi Experts; and (b) similarly, if you buy something such as Salesforce, kick-off with their vanilla version and, again, you do have in-house staff who already know the system and who could then do much of the work themselves. However, even in this scenario, such staff are likely (at this point in time) to still have limited exposure to implementing large CRM system at NFPs, so there could still be the benefit of using the suppliers' professional services even in these instances.

I’m just not sure what I think about suppliers who say you can do it all yourself and don’t need their input. They are either amazing or maybe, er, not giving you the full picture…

Does it matter if a Fundraising database supplier doesn’t understand Fundraising?

The more I work on fundraising software procurement and implementation projects, the more I ask this question: how much does the supplier's experience of fundraising matter?

For years, this hasn't been such a relevant question, at least when purchasing packages as opposed to bespoke systems, because most new fundraising database systems were supplied by companies who either specialised in the sector or who at least had a dedicated department who did so. Of course one would find companies and individuals with more or less knowledge or experience but nearly all had some. And also you could see the evidence of some of their claims with their software.

But now with the prevalence of the newer CRM systems, this is a more poignant question. Now, in theory, any company who sells Salesforce, MS Dynamics and the like, can at least promote themselves as a partner who can provide a fundraising solution. So does that matter? What are the problems with that? Or actually, are there even benefits of using a supplier with less sector knowledge?

The reasons that a supplier's knowledge does matter are comparatively easy to identify:

• Charities are different to commercial organisations. That might sound an obvious thing to say, and in some ways it isn't 100% true for fundraising - after all, we're managing contacts, building relationships, running events and "selling" in the same way as a business is, just philanthropically. But there are of course many distinct differences and approaches - and one of the most significant is that several commercial CRM suppliers I have worked with have been amazed at the sheer breadth of activities which charities manage in comparison to their size. And thus their internal complexity increases. This isn't always a good thing of course, but it's a fact.
• Any supplier in any sector who can bring experience of working with your peers will surely add something to the project. They won't just be implementing software, but should be able to suggest ideas and approaches that have worked for other charities.
• You don't have to explain what Gift Aid is, how direct debits work, why relationship fundraising is important, who JustGiving are and so on. They will know that already. And why should you have to pay a company to teach them all that?!
• They won't try to take you down a route which isn't right for a not-for-profit organisation, or overly try to enforce their concepts from other sectors which they might believe are right but which they don't actually have experience of doing in the NFP sector.
• Many of the traditional fundraising database suppliers have ex-charity employees in their implementation and support teams, and that can be a great benefit as they can bring real-life and hands-on experience of using that system.
• All this should hopefully increase benefits, reduce risk, reduce the project timescale and as a result, keep costs down.

That said, one would hope that any company who understands CRM, has good business analysts, can empathise with your organisation and bring great technology skills should be able to manage a lot of the above even without specific fundraising sector knowledge. And in some instances that can be true. Sadly not always, but sometimes.

On the other hand, I also have to say that one of the great things which has happened primarily as a result of the newer, generic CRM systems now flooding the charity sector, is that we are getting a whole new view and different insight into charitable activities. I have been saying for years how insular we can be as a sector (myself included on occasions!) and so surely I should celebrate newer entrants with fresh thoughts and ideas?

So what can a company with less fundraising experience bring to the table?

• They can challenge a charity's pre-conceived ideas that the only way to do something is how they do it now. Okay, a fundraising-knowledgeable supplier should be able to do the same, but as more of an outsider, a company with less knowledge can ask what might seem like basic questions - and some may well be! - but some might just make us think that little bit differently and hence start to get a whole new advantage in an area.
• They will bring good business practises which some of the sector may not have followed before.
• They could bring commercial ideas to the table. This may be something of an anathema to some organisations, but for others, it might even help fundraising.
• They will have a wider knowledge of multiple sectors and industries, and be able to provide input in all sorts of ways which we might never have thought of before. I have always thought that the fundraising technology sector should be able to learn more from other businesses so this is an opportunity to do so.
• They should - the ones you invite as a possible supplier - "get CRM". And that's definitely a good thing.

My Conclusion

I am a bit torn. I already embrace new CRM systems into the sector and I really want to embrace the suppliers with them. And some are good - some very good. But some have their issues too.

Not that the traditional fundraising database suppliers are perfect - I've worked with enough to see holes and problems with their approach, fundraising knowledge and understanding of technology.

But on balance, I still need to be shown by any "non-sector" supplier that they do know, have knowledge of or can learn about fundraising and the charity sector. I will always remain open and encourage suppliers to provide that to my clients and me, and if they can do, fantastic, they're in the melting pot. But if they can't then I need to question if working with them is going to help or hinder the fundraising database implementation.

Not blaming the client: the supplier's responsibility when implementing CRM systems

 

Every now and then on database implementation projects, I'm aware of suppliers who try to pass the buck once too much and maybe try to overly blame the client when the project isn't going well. And I have one fundamental issue with this: the supplier is the expert who will have implemented dozens and maybe hundreds (thousands?) of similar systems - the client will hopefully only do this once every five to ten years. So doesn't the supplier have an additional responsibility?

Now. I do realise that it isn't quite as cut-and-dry as that. I know of charities who have blamed the supplier when things have gone wrong, or accused them of things when I am pretty sure that the supplier would never have advocated such an approach. Or the charity itself should have considered something, requested something, put something in place or, most commonly, committed more and/or more appropriate resources to the project. And yes, it should be a partnership between supplier and client. So I completely accept that the supplier cannot be and should not be responsible for all aspects of the project.

But I do get annoyed when a supplier blames far too much on the client. Or when they do not explain things better to a charity, when a supplier goes off down a route of development which clearly isn't appropriate for a charity, or when the charity is expected to 'sign off' design issues early on in an implementation and when the implications of any decisions are not truly understood by a charity - and yet the supplier should have the experience to really emphasise more to the charity just what they should be doing and what might happen if they don't do that. And if the charity still decides not to follow their advice, then fair enough. But the supplier has to take some responsibility.

The trouble is, as I said above, if a charity is only implementing a fundraising database/CRM systems once every few years, and even if they are employing a database manager or similar who has maybe done a similar implementation once or twice before, they still won't have the experience which the supplier has. So how can they really understand the full implications of any decision unless the supplier makes it really clear to them?

On the other hand...
So if I am saying all this then it is probably only fair if I also address one question which a supplier could quite understandably ask me: if a charity does ignore their advice then what should I do? With the extreme question, should we even walk away from the project?

Clearly one hopes it is a rare thing for a project to reach such a point that a supplier has to consider this. I have had a wee rant above about what I believe suppliers should do, but I also hope that most of the time - with good, reputable suppliers - this just means that if they do see a charity doing things the wrong way then they at least discuss this with the client. If necessary, one might want to pause the project, try to get it back on track, work out how it can be managed better (by both sides?) as it continues, but I would hope that all such considerations are held before anything more drastic is done.

And walk away? There would of course be all sorts of contractual issues, unless one side just accepts the lost income, but it is an interesting ethical question. I'm sure we would all prefer that the supplier - and client - worked hard to turn the project around, but yes, maybe there is a time when it is right to sever ties mid-way through an implementation. But that's tough.

Trying to avoid this in the first place
So what can we do to try to avoid reaching such an impasse? The first thing the charity can do - and possibly the supplier to - is undertake a through procurement and, if appropriate, an immediate design/discovery phase after that with the preferred supplier. This may open up areas which are currently misunderstood, show other areas which need to be hammered down, raise issues of resourcing, budget, responsibilities etc. I know several suppliers who insist on such phases now in CRM projects.

Designated project roles can also help; a project manager on the client's side is of course important and even a Solution Owner role might be another answer; early and comprehensive training of the project team could help; documentation showing deliverables and responsibilities; or documentation full stop can help. If we have good, agreed, well structured documentation showing what has been requested, agreed, designed, planned, deferred and so on, then that in itself can help prevent (some of) the 'but you said...' issues.

Even implementing using agile project management can alleviate some of these issues, although I have equally found that agile can be an excuse that just because a decision was made a few sprints ago, now we have to change it because 'new requirements' have come to light, when in actual fact it was just a poor decision/recommendation in the original sprint...


But I still sometimes have to come back to the supplier's responsibility as well. As I say, they are the CRM experts, they are the ones who know what has gone well and gone badly before - and those that understand this will be the good ones who will succeed in the sector. And we all know how important reputation is in the sector. That alone should be enough to encourage them to uphold this approach.

What is the best way to invest additional budget in a CRM implementation?

I have this little dream that a charity phones me up one day and says to me, Ivan, we have some spare money we want to invest in our CRM implementation - where do you suggest we spend it? Unfortunately, before I can say, "Me! Me!", I of course wake up.

But it has made me think: if someone was to ask me, if we wanted to spend more money somewhere on our CRM project, then where should we spend it - and assuming that I am wearing my incredibly self-righteous hat so that I don't of course say me - then what would my answer be? I'm also assuming for the purpose of this hypothesis that they already have an existing budget which is "satisfactory" and certainly enough so that the project could at least be completed "satisfactorily". Thus, any extra money would be a complete bonus to add real extra value.

So, what would I do with such a windfall?

What I wouldn't spend it on
Interestingly, when I challenged myself to answer this, I found it harder than I thought I would. So let me start off by saying what I wouldn't spend it on.

• Extra software licenses. I don't think you need more licenses at the start of an implementation and, ironically, if you did buy more licenses then it would probably mean the need for an even larger budget to cope with the extra demands.
• Better Hardware. I don't think more powerful hardware will add as much extra value as other places.
• Data cleaning. Again, important, but not as important as other points.
• More training. More controversial perhaps, but, assuming we would be spending it on more training from the database supplier, I think extra training could be delivered in-house by the charity's own trained staff with more time... see below.
• Additional project management. As I am often a PM, this might be surprising, but there is a limit to how much project management a project needs and anything above that isn't going to provide the same benefits as other things.
• Software customisation. I've written before about how I believe we should keep a new CRM system as "vanilla" as possible, so I don't think spending money on more customisation up-front is the best approach.
• Integration. I was close to including this in the list below in my short-list for consideration. There are great benefits from integrating a new database with, say, another database in your organisation, or your website if it hasn't been linked before, or with an email marketing system. And the only reason I am not suggesting the money should be spent on such budgets in this scenario is because I think, if it wasn't already in scope then it would make the project larger and harder to implement in Phase 1. But if I had more money which I could spend later then, yes, this would be a prime budget to use it on.

What I might spend it on
My short list:

• Consultancy from the Database Supplier - post-live. (I can just hear the CRM suppliers cheering whilst reading this!) One of the key things about implementing a new system is understanding what it can really do for your charity which will provide real, solid benefits, aligning it to your processes, and enabling your staff to understand what the new database can truly manage. And for these reasons, I would consider buying more post-live consultancy time from the supplier. Not more time during the requirements gathering stage etc, but after we go-live when we actually get down to using the darn thing. That's when I think we can get most benefit from such consultancy.
• More resources (people) during the implementation. i.e. most likely, freeing up the time of the existing, key staff who could be involved on the project, but because they often have to consider their Business As Usual, they too frequently cannot dedicate the time to the project which ideally they should. So getting in more resources to do their BAU so they can concentrate their efforts on the project will pay dividends in spades. It will mean they get more involved, earlier, with more understanding of the new system and the charity's systems/processes, will become stronger advocates and supporters of the database and will mean that the whole thing will stand a much better chance of going live successfully.
• Creating reports ready for go-live. This is sadly one of those areas which is often under-budgeted for (and under-scoped) but can provide so much benefit: being able to implement reports as soon as you go-live - being able to uncover and streamline benefits from data and information. Indeed, the difference a new system can make and through reporting and analysis is an immense benefit to have.

My final decision
So if I am offered my extra budget then, weighing up the above options, the area which I believe would give the most extra benefit and value would be spending it on "more resource during the implementation"; or as I said above, probably back-filling existing staff's roles so that they could be freed up to do more work on the project itself.

I think that this would mean so much more to a charity and would not only help the initial implementation, but would provide a far stronger base for future development and on-going use of the new system.

Now over to you...
What would you do? What would spend it on if someone gave you an extra wad of cash to invest in a new database implementation? Answers in the Comments below please!

Only pay for your new database if objectives are met? How does that sound?!

Cloud CRM Supplier, Workbooks.com, recently announced an innovative approach to implementation pricing: Customers now pay half project fees upfront and if objectives are not met then they do not pay the remainder. And I’m wondering if this is a model which could be brought to CRM and fundraising database implementations in the NFP sector?

Of course there are challenges to this approach, the most obvious being, How do you set the objectives so that they are appropriate and fair to both the vendor and client? And measurable.

Workbooks.com say about this process: “SME CRM projects often fail because businesses struggle to set goals [so] Workbooks helps set objectives.” Which rings true. But set the objectives too "low", which of course the supplier should be able to meet more easily, and the client won’t get any business benefits from the implementation; too “high” objectives and the supplier won’t be able to meet them and thus it won’t work for them (or the client...)

You also have the potential issue of a client not "working hard enough" during the implementation so that objectives are not met and thus they don’t have to pay half the fees. And although that is possible, I think this might be mitigated and “self policed” by the client’s management team wanting to see results from their investment as soon as possible and not expecting there to be delays in benefits because of lack of impetus. And if there is a proven, expected ROI from the implementation (perhaps more likely in commercial CRM implementations than nonprofits) then why would a client want to delay that? This though, is a risk I suspect the supplier might have to accept.

On the other hand, a client also has the risk that a supplier might just focus their efforts on the key deliverables which would mean the objectives would be met and not "care" about other aspects of the project; but, providing those objectives are good for the client and mutually desirable to both parties, then that might be no bad thing as a starting point.

Indeed, the potential benefits of this approach are attractive. In theory, such a process could therefore mean you could get a very good scenario: because the client is of course going to want to get as much benefit as they can out of the implementation, and therefore be keen on pushing the supplier to provide “higher” objectives, but if the supplier keeps this in check so that the targets are achievable (and therefore they will get paid) then the client should also implement something which is not beyond their means. And over-expectations and under-achievements are the bain of many a CRM implementation.

It should also give clients some belief in the supplier's workload and project approach. If a supplier doesn’t match-up to expectations then of course they won’t get that part of the payment. That said, I suspect many clients would rather the supplier did meet their objectives and would rather they didn’t have to chase the supplier to do the work, even if there is a financial benefit to them if the supplier stalls.

I also wonder whether this model takes a step towards the mythical “partnership” which CRM suppliers love to talk about during sales processes, because this model would have to be a partnership for both parties to benefit appropriately.

The key to the success or otherwise of this approach is of course the ability to set the correct, achievable, beneficial and measurable objectives/goals/benefits of the CRM implementation. But that really shouldn’t be beyond the wit of smart and willing people who all ultimately want the same goal.

So, fundraising database suppliers, charity CRM solution providers, what do you think?! Have I missed any critical points? And who’s up for it…?!

How do you compare like-for-like on CRM Suppliers’ Professional Services?

 

I’ve recently had several discussions with charities and database suppliers about how difficult it can be to compare different suppliers’ Professional Services during a database procurement. This is partly in terms of comparing the specific services/options they are offering, but of course it is often about being able to compare like-for-like in terms of cost.

The charities have thus been confused or surprised that one supplier can claim to do something so much more cheaply than another; and some of the suppliers have themselves been cheesed off that a competitor has quoted so much less when they really believe that their competitor can't come close to offering the same services as they are doing with such a budget. (Some database suppliers do have a fair idea of what some of their competitors charge for services). Which, sadly, can entice the first supplier to 'minimise' their options too when they know they should be recommending the charity buys more. And thus the charity can't compare all the suppliers' professional services equally.

This is of course one reason as to why some charities use consultants to help them with procurement because consultants do such work more often and can thus help their client compare like-for-like and with the knowledge of how specific suppliers work.


So, for the benefit of all, I've listed here a few tips as to how I approach this potential conundrum and some specific things to look out for.

• Comparing like-for-like is important as much as possible. I understand this is the core of the matter but the important thing is to break down the suppliers' services costs into comparable sections; e.g. Specification, Development, Deployment, Data Migration, Post go-live support, Project Management etc. It is quite likely that different suppliers may have different terms for the same thing (e.g. discovery phase or requirements document; configuration or development) but you need to understand that and thus be able to compare apples with apples. Ask suppliers to detail what they are actually offering in their written proposal and that should help you. But be aware that, say, if one company is offering 2 days training and another 10 days then that isn’t truly like-for-like, and the question therefore is whether one is under-estimating or the other over-estimating, or whether both could be right! See below for more thoughts on that awkward point.

• Ensure you include/consider all possible costs for all suppliers – even if some suppliers haven’t included them in their quotes/proposals. Some such costs will definitely be needed for all suppliers’ proposals (e.g. training, data migration), so if a supplier has not quoted for such an item at all, then ask them why not or make an allowance. That said, some costs may not be critical for all implementations (e.g. additional report writing, even go-live support for smaller projects) so in some instances it may genuinely be that some solutions will require different services.

• Comparing ‘traditional’, dedicated fundraising packages vs ‘generic’ CRM systems. I wrote a whole series of blogs recently about this, but in terms of professional services, for the “average size charity”, it might well be that some of the services required for the CRM systems are not needed at the same detail by fundraising package suppliers – and thus this aspect of the CRM systems will either genuinely be or appear to be more expensive. For example, a fundraising package may have Gift Aid, Prospect Management and income structure all built-in as standard, but some CRM systems may need to be configured or bespoked to manage these needs. (NB: this doesn’t make one better or worse! Again, read my blog posts giving a far more comprehensive comparison).
  
  Likewise, because CRM systems by their definition will need more configuration (but probably will have cheaper license costs), it may be more difficult for CRM suppliers to give accurate (or even ball-park) figures at the time of a proposal. They are more likely to need to do more work with your charity before they can provide such costs, and sometimes that discovery or feasibility work will be chargeable. Nothing (necessarily) wrong with that – but you need to build it into your cost comparison.

• Training: There can be all sorts of different ways of quoting for training, aside from the fact that one supplier may, say, recommend 3 days and another 12 days. For example, on/off-site training; user vs admin/power-users; “generic system training” (e.g. Salesforce admin training) vs system-specific; training all users vs train-the-trainer approach; and so on. Check each quote. And see below about my thoughts on dramatically different recommendations of, say, the number of days required.

• Integration with your website: Integrating with your website to automate data integration with your fundraising database for online donations, event registrations etc can really vary in the functionality being offered, the simplicity, ability, technical approach, comprehensiveness, customisation, automation and, thus, cost. Check out exactly what each supplier is or is not quoting for and how accurate they feel they are being about such pricing.

• Remember other integration; e.g. third-party software, data feeds etc. If one supplier does include integration costs and another does not, then check with the one who has not as to why not. It might be that some such costs are standard functionality and are thus not needed, or it might be a package offering they are providing; or they might have “forgotten” or just not included it.
  
  Integration can be one of the most expensive aspects of any implementation so don’t brush this under the carpet.

• Data Migration. This is one of the hardest costs to compare. It is one of the hardest areas for any supplier to provide a quote on unless they spend some time looking at your data or unless they have a standard cost and just accept that they may spend more time on some project than others in doing this work. Although I would personally be cautious of that approach as I would be wary of what they were really offering and at what level of quality. I personally prefer quotes specifically oriented at my client's requirements.
  
  You can therefore take the estimate the supplier has given you and balance that against the other suppliers, but I would also talk further to any supplier who has quoted significantly less than the others. Why have they done that? What does/doesn’t it include? Do you have simple or complex data? A single or multiple sources? Are they allowing for multiple trial migrations as part of the project and thus charging less/more? And so on.
  
  One simple if crude approach, unless you have solid reasons to think otherwise, is to take the highest quote of all your suppliers and put that against them all. This takes this out of the equation in terms of pure costs.

• Of course, some systems will be different. Some will require less or more configuration, even if both are fundraising packages. Some may require less/more training, and so on. Talk to the suppliers, talk to their customers when you take references, talk to other charities online, at events etc.

• Some suppliers are more/less expensive. Some will have different day rates, some will insist on more project management, some will have pre-configured solutions/templates, some will offer discounts. And so on and so on…

A good rule of thumb is: if one supplier has quoted for a specific service but another has not, then ask yourself - and then probably the second supplier - why this is. There may be a good reason for it - e.g. it may be incorporated in another cost - but if it is needed and they haven't included it in their costs then bear that in mind...

In general, if one company quotes a lot less the other(s)…
… then go back and ask them about it. There’s nothing wrong with telling them that other suppliers (although I wouldn’t personally, necessarily say the names of such suppliers) have quoted for a lot more, so why are they quoting so much less. They might be able to explain why you need less development time, or their in-house knowledge of your current system means that they know they can do something in less days; their software might be much simpler/limited in terms of functionality/customisation etc so they might really not need to do so much work on it (although you then need to remember that when comparing different systems...); or, for example, it might be that they genuinely believe you don’t need so much training.

Or it might be that they had a caveat somewhere else in their proposal which stated they were only offering x days training and that you would need more if you wanted X,Y,Z… You’ll then at least be able to compare better, and you can then decide if that was a genuine oversight by that company or whether it was bit disingenuous.

Do not assume that if company X has said you only need 10 days of their time, and company Y and Z have both said you’ll need 30, then X will ultimately be cheaper or better or right for you. Of course they may be - but it may be that they are offering less, both in terms of work and functionality, or they may be implying you “might” need more but haven’t included that in their “core costs”.